Do many (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments?

[harvey1]

I realize that there's many (a)theists that accept philosophical arguments, but there's many here who seem very distrustful of philosophical arguments. Indeed, there's some (a)theists who give me the impression that they would never change their philosophy based on a philosophical argument. My question is how highly do you think most (a)theists rate the importance of philosophy in establishing what they believe with regard to God's existence. Is philosophy unimportant to most (a)theists--is that the right policy? Or, do many or most (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments because they are distrustful of any beliefs that are not established directly by science(/faith)?

[QED]

The philosophical reasoning that is contained in that scientific understanding is immense. (E.g., humans can have knowledge about the world, there's such things as objects, physical evidence tells us about the world, human minds are not imagining the world around us, etc., etc..)

Which way around is this thing though? Isn't it science that anchors philosophy to actuality? Philosophy can build itself a self-consistent world that has no relation to anything actual (like Hugh's sprout) so is always in need of some sort of empirical test to prove its merits.

We have become so accustomed to our philosophical successes that we hardly question them at all. They strike us as common sense. But, at one time this was not the case. There really were large groups of people who thought that knowledge of the world was impossible. There really were large groups of people who didn't think physical evidence told us anything about the world, etc., etc.. Gradually philosophical successes became part of our way of seeing the world, and as a result, we stuff and package those successes in the announcement of a new theoretical confirmation (fact), and just assume that philosophy had nothing to do with those successes.

That's progress for you! Repeatability is a cornerstone of the empirical approach and I can't help but find it a little ironic that so much seems to cause you to give thanks in the same tradition as those who did so in more confused times. But if the above is also true that philosophy needs to be anchored to actuality by empiricism then we would seem to be stuck in another one of those vicious circles.

[harvey1]

Regarding the issue about complex numbers, it can be shown why those numbers work--so this does not make the math false but actually shows the success of math.

Piffle. Go into a lab and weight out 5+3i grams of NaCl. It can't be done. Drive your car 30+10i MPH. Can't be done either. Imaginary numbers are 100% bogus. All they did was define i such that i^2=-1. Then with a few other conventions, they could work out a consistent systems of proofs. Complex math is much more like a game with agreed rules than a representation of a physical reality.

Check this webpage for a demonstration of what complex numbers actually refer to. I think you can see that complex numbers as pairs of reals aren't so mysterious as you think.

And finally, the ideal gas law isn't even the simplest expression we could use. There is an even simpler expression for gasses that is used even more commonly, namely PV=1. It's true (and false) just like the ideal gas law.

You are missing my point entirely about the ideal gas law. These equations demonstrate the mathematical structure to how nature organizes itself, but of course there are other facts going on in a complex system that must be considered. The same is true for Newton's equations, or for most of physics. It's even true in mathematics where a word problem could be cast to consider the values of constants, or multiple vectors, etc.. I think that in order to prove your point, you would need to show that mathematics is no more effective than if someone invented their own private versions of math, and then successfully used those private versions to describe and predict physical events in the universe. Good luck.

If it is truly an invention and convention, then why can't humans invent and arbitrarily use different standards?

I'm not sure why you think this can't be done. For example, in our basic physics we take position and time to be fundmental quantities. From them we derive velocity and acceleration. A being that evolved on a gas giant like Jupiter, for example, might take velocity and time as fundemental quantities (since position would have little meaning in a planet-sized cloud). There are at least two different types of geometry that could describe the universe (differing on whether parallel lines meet). We use one, and the other seems utterly incomprehensible, but it is known that it could be used, and might even be intuitive to some alien culture. And of course the values of the various constants are dependant on the systems we choose to use, and could be very different in some other system.

That's not answering my question. If math is a invention/convention, then there really is no reason why you can't have hundreds and thousands of maths that are completely incommensurable to each other. This has been tried, and to date none of those attempts have been shown to be consistent by their own set of rules (i.e., without showing they are equivalent to our current branches of math). Certainly there's no other physics that can be constructed using these inconsistent maths. Go ahead and try. Good luck.

Not my field, of course, so I googled "evidence for quarks". I found this quote

No. You can't refer to protons and 0.9 TeVs because nobody knows what those refer to unless we have modern particle theory to tell us what they mean. You have to show the evidence for quarks that is completely theory-independent. Good luck.

think you're conflating evidence with observational data.

Eeek! In my view these are one and the same thing. I'm left confused as to what you think evidence is.

Roughly, evidence is what justifies a belief. Observational data is what you have if you record or collect from observations.

[Bugmaster]

Complex math is much more like a game with agreed rules than a representation of a physical reality.

Check this webpage for a demonstration of what complex numbers actually refer to. I think you can see that complex numbers as pairs of reals aren't so mysterious as you think.

I think you guys are both wrong. I agree with juliod that math is an invention; however, it's a useful invention. Complex numbers can be used to directly express properties of LRC circuits, in the same way that real numbers can be used to directly express length.

However, this does not imply that numbers actually exist, as Harvey's link claims. That article essentially says, "we can apply all kinds of rules to complex numbers, therefore they exist". That's pretty weak. And, even though numbers can be used to measure physical objects, that doesn't mean that physical objects are actually made of numbers, or that numbers have an independent existence. You can have two apples, or two rocks, but you can't have an abstract two in your pocket.

Numbers are a useful invention, no more, no less.

These equations demonstrate the mathematical structure to how nature organizes itself, but of course there are other facts going on in a complex system that must be considered. The same is true for Newton's equations, or for most of physics. It's even true in mathematics where a word problem could be cast to consider the values of constants, or multiple vectors, etc..

No, that last bit is false. In mathematics, a word problem contains a complete and perfect description of all its variables. If the problem says, "Suzie has 2 grams of salt, she ate 1 gram, how many grams of salt does Suzie have left ?", the answer is "1 gram". This is what separates math -- a made-up game -- from physics, where all of these quantities would have uncertainties associated with them, and where all kinds of physical and chemical processes would need to be described.

Actually, now that I think about it, this confusion between math, where everything is defined with 100% clarity, and physics, where nothing is certain (including the rules), is the main reason for misunderstandings and debate between dualists and materialists. Dualists tend to see everything in terms of 100% certain, precise math, including the so-called "laws of nature", which belong in the uncertain realm of science.

I think that in order to prove your point, you would need to show that mathematics is no more effective than if someone invented their own private versions of math, and then successfully used those private versions to describe and predict physical events in the universe. Good luck.

You mean, like Riemann and Lobachevsky ?

That's not answering my question. If math is a invention/convention, then there really is no reason why you can't have hundreds and thousands of maths that are completely incommensurable to each other. This has been tried, and to date none of those attempts have been shown to be consistent by their own set of rules (i.e., without showing they are equivalent to our current branches of math).

This is false. I can imagine all kinds of random maths that would be internally consistent, and yet inconsistent with each other. I think that was juliod's point, actually.

Roughly, evidence is what justifies a belief. Observational data is what you have if you record or collect from observations.

What else would you use to justify a belief, other than observational data ?

[juliod]

Check this webpage for a demonstration of what complex numbers actually refer to. I think you can see that complex numbers as pairs of reals aren't so mysterious as you think.

I didn't say they were mysterious. I said they were bogus. The square root of negative one is a nonsensical concept. That web page did nothing to argue otherwise. As bug said, they were taking the view (nonsensical) that if there is a consisten set of rules then it is a reality. Plato might have accepted that, but I don't.

(BTW, I think you can take it as read that I understand what complex numbers are and how to use them.)

And finally, drop the complex part and deal with pure imaginary numbers. Can you drive 30i MPH or weight out 3i grams of NaCl? Nope.

So, math does not provide any example of simplicity, elegance, or truth in the universe.

You can't refer to protons and 0.9 TeVs because nobody knows what those refer to unless we have modern particle theory to tell us what they mean.

Now your getting all Nihilist on us. Let's just say we bang one thing into another, really fast, and here are the quarks that come out of it. A lay person could look at the evidence without special instruction in what it all means or what the details are. Now you'll say we can't use words like "thing" and "fast".

Roughly, evidence is what justifies a belief. Observational data is what you have if you record or collect from observations.

Then we differ completely. Many things can "justify a belief", including fear of persecution or insanity. To me, evidence, observations and data are all synonyms. And they are used as synonyms in many books and scientific literature.


I think I've decimated your arguments in this thread. We need to step back and not get distracted by math. Can you give examples of progress through argument-based philosophy? Naturalist/rationalists can point to the progress of science, technology, and medicine, as the results of evidence-based thinking. Can you give examples of tangible, practical progress from philosophy that isn't just opinion or socio-politics?

DanZ

[juliod]

I think you guys are both wrong. I agree with juliod that math is an invention; however, it's a useful invention.

I didn't say complex numbers weren't useful. I said they were bogus, which they are.

Complex numbers can be used to directly express properties of LRC circuits, in the same way that real numbers can be used to directly express length.

Sure, but they do so in a way that references a quantity that is known to not exist. Yes, it gives us accurate answers, but complex math shows that math is all full of lies and can't be used to prove the existance of "beauty and elegance" in the universe, etc etc.

Such claims about how wonderful math is are just so much bald-faced nonsence, considering how nasty math is once you get beyond 7th grade algebra.

(And, BTW, LCR circuits and all other physical phenomena to which compex numbers are applied can be expressed without complex numbers. Complex numbers are used in these applications because a) they are slightly easier to work with; and b) mathematicians are all nuts.)

This is what separates math -- a made-up game -- from physics

I can give another example, which I think is even better. We all know the story of the square root of 2, right? The ancient greeks were able to prove that it is not a rational numbers. In their context this meant that there were no whole numbers (or ratio of whole numbers) which could express the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle with side equal to 1. This is provable to what Harv would call a mathematical certainty. Yet, in the real world, it is quite easy to draw an actual right triangle of 1 cm by 1 cm, with a rational hypotenuse. I suggest you try a whole number ratio with a numerator of 141421 and denominator of an even 100000. Try it, it works. It will be more accurate than you can draw the line.

DanZ

[harvey1]

I didn't say they were mysterious. I said they were bogus. The square root of negative one is a nonsensical concept. That web page did nothing to argue otherwise. As bug said, they were taking the view (nonsensical) that if there is a consisten set of rules then it is a reality. Plato might have accepted that, but I don't.

I'm wondering if you read that link. The complex number system is formed by a pair of real numbers, and the pair (0,1) is i since (0,1) squared is -1. There's nothing bogus or non-sensical here. Imaginary numbers can be represented by physical objects if we use the complex number system as shown by that link.

And finally, drop the complex part and deal with pure imaginary numbers. Can you drive 30i MPH or weight out 3i grams of NaCl? Nope.

Can you have a negative mass? If households have 3.2 people on average, can you describe these 0.2 persons and what they look like? Obviously, Juliod, numbers have meaning for physical objects only in particular contexts. If you try to apply those numbers outside of the context then the numbers are meaningless with regard to physical objects (e.g., 0.2 people per household).

So, math does not provide any example of simplicity, elegance, or truth in the universe.

So, why is it that theorems that were "invented" over a hundred years ago are now finding their application in particle physics?

You can't refer to protons and 0.9 TeVs because nobody knows what those refer to unless we have modern particle theory to tell us what they mean.

Now your getting all Nihilist on us. Let's just say we bang one thing into another, really fast, and here are the quarks that come out of it. A lay person could look at the evidence without special instruction in what it all means or what the details are. Now you'll say we can't use words like "thing" and "fast".

You're missing the point. I asked you for evidence for quarks that does not refer to a physical theory, and you referred to particle physics by mentioning protons and 0.9 TeVs. If you want to show evidence that quarks exist without referring to theory, then you must allow us to actually see a quark. Show us a quark. Don't use current theory to show us why we should believe there are quarks.

Roughly, evidence is what justifies a belief. Observational data is what you have if you record or collect from observations.

Then we differ completely. Many things can "justify a belief", including fear of persecution or insanity. To me, evidence, observations and data are all synonyms. And they are used as synonyms in many books and scientific literature.

I think you will find that this is not the case. Evidence is always evidence for something. Data is not necessarily evidence for something. For example, if archaeologists pulled out an artifact of an ancient civilization, it is normal and quite expected to call the artifact as "evidence" because it is evidence for an ancient civilization. Likewise, if they pulled out sand and put it in bags, then they wouldn't label it as "evidence" because it is just sand. The sand is not evidence for anything. If the sand contains volcanic rocks that can be dated, then the rocks in the sand are evidence for when the sand strata was laid down.

Can you give examples of progress through argument-based philosophy? Naturalist/rationalists can point to the progress of science, technology, and medicine, as the results of evidence-based thinking. Can you give examples of tangible, practical progress from philosophy that isn't just opinion or socio-politics?

Well, let's see: physics, biology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, medicine, etc., etc... Soon philosophers will be adding to this impressive list: cognitive science, complexity, and cosmology.

[juliod]

Imaginary numbers can be represented by physical objects if we use the complex number system as shown by that link.

I will accept this when you post a picture of 5i grams of NaCl, or tell me how to drive a car 30i MPH. I don't think you've grasped that sqrt(-1) doesn't exist. Defining i^2=-1 is just a game. They might as well call i the square root of the color blue.

Can you have a negative mass?

Nope. (BTW, don't cofuse negative numbers with the operation of subtraction.)

If households have 3.2 people on average, can you describe these 0.2 persons and what they look like?

No, and you've identified another example for me to use of how numbers fail to represent physical reality. Thanks.

Obviously, Juliod, numbers have meaning for physical objects only in particular contexts. If you try to apply those numbers outside of the context then the numbers are meaningless with regard to physical objects (e.g., 0.2 people per household).

Fine. And in 100% of cases, imaginary (or complex) numbers fail to represent a physical reality. They can give accurate answers, but they can't reveal or describe an underlying truth.

So, math does not provide any example of simplicity, elegance, or truth in the universe.


So, why is it that theorems that were "invented" over a hundred years ago are now finding their application in particle physics?

Why is your question relevant? Math is a tool, we use it. But it's full of lies.

You're missing the point. I asked you for evidence for quarks that does not refer to a physical theory, and you referred to particle physics by mentioning protons and 0.9 TeVs. If you want to show evidence that quarks exist without referring to theory, then you must allow us to actually see a quark. Show us a quark. Don't use current theory to show us why we should believe there are quarks.

I didn't use theory to show you a quark. I didn't mention theory at all. I pointed you to a quote were they refered to the evidence for the existance of quarks. I can't help it that they mentioned protons and energy levels in their quote. The important part is the part about collision products. It's not my field, so I don't know what the data looks like. But it will be a tracing on a plate or a detector or something. If you had a picture of it, you could say "There's a quark".

I personally know no particle physics theory. Yet when I see a tracing of a subatomic particle in a textbook I can see that the tracing is evidence for the existance of the particle. You do not have to understand the theory to see the tracing. Its the same for all primary data.

If the sand contains volcanic rocks that can be dated, then the rocks in the sand are evidence for when the sand strata was laid down.

And yet we find people archiving samples in case a method is invented somday to analyse them, and perhaps to analyse them for things that aren't even imagined today. Evidence with no theory.

Well, let's see: physics, biology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, medicine, etc., etc... Soon philosophers will be adding to this impressive list: cognitive science, complexity, and cosmology.

So philosphy is the art of taking credit for other people's work?

Nothing tangible there, is there? No cures for specific diseases. No designs for hypersonic aircraft. No method of predicting earthquakes. Nope. You need evidence to work on those things.

Yes, we ignore philosophical arguments. But we do not unjustly ignore them.

DanZ

[harvey1]

If households have 3.2 people on average, can you describe these 0.2 persons and what they look like?

No, and you've identified another example for me to use of how numbers fail to represent physical reality. Thanks.

An object is described in the context of a particular structure. A sunflower for example can be describable by fibonacci sequence, and not necessarily by pi. Likewise, averages of people may be representable by real numbers, but people may only be representable by integers.

Fine. And in 100% of cases, imaginary (or complex) numbers fail to represent a physical reality. They can give accurate answers, but they can't reveal or describe an underlying truth.

And, why do you say that? Are you saying there is no reason why natural structures can be described by mathematics? That seems like a rather odd claim if that's your claim.

So, why is it that theorems that were "invented" over a hundred years ago are now finding their application in particle physics?

Why is your question relevant? Math is a tool, we use it. But it's full of lies.

It seems you are saying: "we don't know why the magic stick works, but it does, but its full of lies and deceipts." Yet, we know why many mathematical structures work in the natural world. In fact, the more familiar we become with a theory, the easier it becomes to answer that question. For example, Feynman's path integral explains why Newton's second law works. The path integral shows how 'F=ma' is an excellent approximation at classical scales. We have hundreds of these kind of examples. Mathematics is not a mystical tool the more intimately familiar we become with that tool.

I didn't use theory to show you a quark. I didn't mention theory at all. I pointed you to a quote were they refered to the evidence for the existance of quark. I can't help it that they mentioned protons and energy levels in their quote.

I would suggest that the reason you can't help it is because your evidence for quarks is theory-dependent. Had you been able to help it, you would have quoted evidence that didn't require knowing more about a theory of particle interactions. For example, if I asked for evidence of the sun, you don't need to provide references to nuclear theory. You can say go outside and look at the bright object in the sky. Notice, however, that for theoretical objects you cannot do that. Of course you can't, the evidence for that object is theory-dependent.

The important part is the part about collision products. It's not my field, so I don't know what the data looks like. But it will be a tracing on a plate or a detector or something. If you had a picture of it, you could say "There's a quark".

The data is statistical, and it is statistical assuming a theory of particle interactions is true.

I personally know no particle physics theory. Yet when I see a tracing of a subatomic particle in a textbook I can see that the tracing is evidence for the existance of the particle. You do not have to understand the theory to see the tracing. Its the same for all primary data.

There's no particle traces for quarks. Quarks are bound by quark confinement. We infer the existence and mass of quarks by detecting other particles (i.e., statistical cummulation of collisions of these other particles).

And yet we find people archiving samples in case a method is invented somday to analyse them, and perhaps to analyse them for things that aren't even imagined today. Evidence with no theory.

If it is evidence for an ancient civilization, then it is evidence for that ancient civilization. However, the sand is not evidence for a specific hypothesis unless a hypothesis exists which postulates that the sand might contain evidence of the hypothesis.

So philosphy is the art of taking credit for other people's work?

Nope. Philosophy in the Western world produced those fields while the people in Russia were making stone houses.

Nothing tangible there, is there? No cures for specific diseases. No designs for hypersonic aircraft. No method of predicting earthquakes. Nope. You need evidence to work on those things. Yes, we ignore philosophical arguments. But we do not unjustly ignore them.

Why are you are using a philosophical argument to justify your position of anti-philosophy?

[juliod]

Likewise, averages of people may be representable by real numbers, but people may only be representable by integers.

Technically, no. For real numbers, no one has even seen one, since they have infinite digits. We only have rational numbers (a finite number of digits divided by a 1 followed by a padding of zeros). Again, we approximate real numbers.

People cannot be represented by integers, since we can't have -1 person. Objects can be represented by whole numbers (posative integers except zero).

OTOH, imaginary numbers can't represent anything since no one can get a grip on what sqrt(-1) means. They can be useful because (for example) exp(-i*x) can be equivalent to a sine function.

And, why do you say that? Are you saying there is no reason why natural structures can be described by mathematics? That seems like a rather odd claim if that's your claim.

No, I'm saying that there is a positive reason that imaginary numbers cannot be tied to a physical reality.

It seems you are saying: "we don't know why the magic stick works, but it does, but its full of lies and deceipts."

Yup. That's a good summary of complex math. (Except that we do know why it works, because i was defined and certain conventions agreed.)

Yet, we know why many mathematical structures work in the natural world.

Yes, for some we do. For example, the polynomial expression of genetic ratios in matings involving multiple loci. But this is not generally true.

The path integral shows how 'F=ma' is an excellent approximation at classical scales.

Fine, but don't you see that philosophically speaking, "excellent approximation" means "false"?

Mathematics is not a mystical tool the more intimately familiar we become with that tool.

It's no more mystical than toilet paper, and no less a tool.

Notice, however, that for theoretical objects you cannot do that.

Oh, so you think that subatomic particles are "theoretical"? Ha! Tell that to people who have had "theoretical" radiation poisoning.

What I am trying to say is that if we can see the interaction of some particle with some other matter (such as photo emulsion on a plate, although I'm sure they use digital techniques these days) then we have direct evidence of the existance of that particle, independant of theory.

Reading your later paragraphs, it is clear I'll have to look up more about quarks, but it seems of little interest.

Why are you are using a philosophical argument to justify your position of anti-philosophy?

Is there a reason to think a person can't be both philosophical and anti-philosophical? Is this a "logical impossibility"? (Oops, wrong thread.) Even Nietzsche said "Philosophers are the greatest of criminals".

We have lost sight completely of your original question, about whether there are philosophical arguments with sufficient force that they cannot be ignored. I say there aren't.

DanZ

[Bugmaster]

Juliod: I still say you're wrong about numbers of any kind being real (yes, and that includes real numbers, heh). Can you show me a two ? I don't think so. You can show me two objects, or maybe a squiggly line on a piece of paper, but neither of those are twos. Similarly, you can't show me a -5, or a 0 (in fact, you can't even show me -5 objects or 0 objects). You also can't show me 3/4, and you can't show me exactly 3/4 of a pie, either.

Like you said, math is a tool; numbers are tools we invent to approximate the real world. Complex numbers express the properties of electronic circuits just as "real" numbers express length or mass: they're just models we create to make sense of the world. In fact, this is why you always hear physicists attaching units to numbers. My screen is not 21 long, it's 21 inches long. The "inches" part describes a very simple model that uses numbers as a building block.